The lights have gone out. In Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa, and countless Ukrainian cities, towns and villages, families huddle in cold apartments and dwellings as temperatures have plunged well below freezing. Hospitals rely on backup generators that can unexpectedly fail. Water pumps go out, heating systems die, elevators in tall buildings stop working, and frozen food sections in supermarkets remain empty.
This is Ukraine in the winter of 2025-26. The cause is not a freak natural disaster, but a deliberate campaign by Russia to obliterate the country’s energy infrastructure with missiles and drones – a calculated strategy to break Ukrainian civilian morale by making conditions unlivable.
This is Vladimir Putin’s war at its worst – a strategy built on maximizing civilian suffering. The result is a slow-moving humanitarian disaster, seen even from space as Ukrainian cities go dark while Russian cities remain lit.
Yet this disastrous situation could have been prevented, which makes it even harder to accept.
For nearly four years, Ukrainian officials have pleaded for robust air defense systems and the means to protect their skies. In the early months of the full-scale invasion, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s requests were specific and urgent: close the sky, provide Patriot batteries, deliver long-range systems capable of intercepting the missiles and drones that Russia launches by the hundreds.
Trump has shown over and over that he is not a peacemaker, but a war prolonger.
The request was not for Western troops on the ground or direct NATO involvement in combat operations. It was for the tools to defend civilian infrastructure from aerial bombardment.
These requests were met with hesitation, delays, and political concerns about escalation. Western leaders, especially in Washington, worried about provoking Moscow and appearing too involved. They sent Javelins and HIMARS, which helped but could not stop the constant attacks from Russian missiles and drones launched from afar.
Donald Trump has intensified and prolonged Ukraine’s suffering. While Putin is responsible for the war and the destruction it’s brought, Trump’s attitude amounts to collusion with the Kremlin’s strategy, and it must be called out.
He claimed he would end the war “in 24 hours.” That was not a boast, but a lie.
Instead of peace, his actions have led to more suffering, giving Russia time to strengthen its position and continue destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure.
Trump has shown over and over that he is not a peacemaker, but a war prolonger. The distinction matters profoundly when Ukrainian children are freezing in unheated buildings and Russian missiles continually rain down.
His administration declined to provide Ukraine with military support that could be used as leverage in any negotiation. Instead, Trump has frequently publicly suggested that Ukraine should surrender land. He openly questions whether supporting Ukraine serves America’s interests, while speaking in admiring terms of Putin.
This is not diplomacy. This is complicity.
So, every aid package that has been delayed is a boost to Moscow. Hesitation in providing the proper backing for Ukraine has induced Russia to intensify attacks on power stations.
Every time Trump has suggested that the war costs America too much, he has effectively told Putin to keep fighting, that patience will be rewarded, that the West will eventually abandon Ukraine to its fate.
This disastrous situation could have been prevented, which makes it even harder to accept.
This pattern shows a man whose interests complement those of the Kremlin. Trump doesn’t push for real peace – real peace means Russia pulls out of occupied land and owns up to what it’s done. He’s after a deal that lets him take the spotlight, even if it means giving Putin exactly what he wants: Ukrainian territory, a NATO that’s lost its edge, and a clear message that bullying works if you just wait long enough for the West to be distracted or give up.
There’s no need to recall how Trump has also sought to profit from the war, demanding major concessions from Ukraine as to access to its minerals, insisting European NATO allies buy arms from the US to provide to Ukraine, and even placing the huge Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station, currently captured by the Russians, under joint management by Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington.
All this is not only disgraceful. It is the most dangerous kind of appeasement – not naivety, but scarcely concealed collaboration.
The months Trump has spent debating whether Ukraine deserves support gave Moscow the green light to escalate. His signals made American commitment seem negotiable. Putin heard them loud and clear.
The warm words Trump has offered the Kremlin, while Ukrainians have continued to die, have emboldened Russia to continue its campaign of terror against civilians. The lesson Moscow learned was simple: strike with impunity. Trump will ensure that Western red lines are drawn in disappearing ink. Time favors aggression when the American president can be counted on to undermine allies.
Europe has finally begun to grasp the existential nature of the threat. The continent has watched Russia’s aggression with growing alarm, recognizing that Ukraine’s fight is Europe’s fight, that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are not abstract concepts but the foundations of continental security. European nations have increased military production, committed to long-term support packages, and begun serious discussions about their own defense capabilities independent of American guarantees.
But Europe’s new determination is constrained by US delays. America remains the alliance’s key military power and is the only country able to provide advanced systems quickly and in large numbers. When Washington hesitates, so does the whole coalition. When Trump delays aid or suggests Ukraine give up territory, it weakens Europe’s efforts to stay united.
The result is a half-measure approach: enough support to keep Ukraine from collapsing, but not enough for victory or to fully protect civilians from Russian bombardment.
Consequently, Moscow continues its war of attrition: grind down Ukrainian infrastructure and morale, while betting that Western publics will eventually tire of the costs and pressure their governments to force Kyiv into accepting a disadvantageous peace.
All this is not only disgraceful. It is the most dangerous kind of appeasement – not naivety, but scarcely concealed collaboration.
The blackouts and freezing conditions are not only humanitarian disasters. They are also tools in Russia’s strategy, meant to make Ukrainians doubt if resisting is worth the pain.
Is there any hope of breaking this cycle? Only if the politics of delay and half-measures are replaced by providing Ukraine with what it actually needs: comprehensive air defense coverage, long-range strike capabilities, and a clear message that territorial conquest will not be rewarded.
There are some reasons for cautious hope. Europe is increasing defense production. New groups are forming to provide help, such as F-16 training and artillery shells. Ukraine’s defense industry has shown innovation, building drones and finding creative ways to cope with shortages. Ukrainians themselves have shown great resilience, adapting to blackouts and hardship in ways no one expected.
But hope must be balanced with realism. Unless US policy changes – either by Trump’s choice or pressure from Congress and the public (or Russia itself implodes) – the current path will mean more suffering, more blackouts, and more frozen cities. Europe cannot fill the gap alone, at least not fast enough to stop more disasters this winter and next.
The path forward requires facing a hard truth: the policy of slow escalation and limited support has failed. It has not stopped the war from getting worse; it has only made the conflict last longer and allowed Russia to kill and harm more Ukrainian civilians.
What is needed to make a difference entails providing air defense systems in sufficient quantity to protect critical infrastructure, enabling strikes on Russian military targets that threaten Ukrainian cities, and making clear that Western support will continue for as long as necessary.
This is not a call for NATO troops in Ukraine or direct conflict with Russia. It is an admission that half-measures are counterproductive.
The darkness in Ukraine was avoidable. It happened because of decisions made in Washington and other Western capitals. Leaders chose caution over courage, process over urgency, and political calculation over moral clarity.
Four years have passed. Four winters of darkness, each colder than before. Western leaders now face the results of their delays. They can keep stumbling along the same path or finally act firmly and promptly to ensure Ukraine’s survival and their own security and comfort.
Meanwhile, Ukrainians wait in the cold. Expressions of sympathy are welcome, but not enough.
Help of a meaningful, decisive sort is needed and long overdue.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.